Much Internet ink has already been shed / spilled over the Apple vs.
Samsung case already, but I need to get some thoughts out of my head and
down into a blog post before they drive me insane. So, bear with me,
dear reader, as I add more fuel to fire, or take another swing at
decayed corpse of the horse (take your pick).

In
1982, Apple released their Lisa computer. Lisa isn't nearly as well
recognized as the later version of Apple's GUI-based computer (the
Macintosh). Development on this project started around 1978, and in
1979, Apple negotiated two tech demos at Xerox's PARC to demonstrate the
Star project (the fore-father of today's modern graphical interface).
Those demos lead to significant improvements to both the Lisa and
Macintosh projects (which were roughly a year apart in development). Had
Xerox filed suit around this time for blatant copying, the computer as
we know it would be a markedly different beast. But, Apple had a
significant amount of time with which to grow it's market-share and
mind-share in the graphical user interface space. Few would argue that
Apple didn't blatantly rip off Xerox's designs, and profited greatly
from them.

Microsoft licensed parts of Apple's GUI for Windows 1.0 (which was
essentially a crappy GUI shell over DOS). When Windows 2.0 was released,
Apple filed suit, and added additional claims when Windows 3.0 was
released. Apple's claims at the time were that the "look and feel" of
the operating system could be protected under copyright. Xerox became
indignant, and sued Apple, saying in effect: "Hey, you copied from us,
so if you're going to get bitchy about look and feel, we're going to get
bitchy right back". Unfortunately, like most legal matters, the suit
between Microsoft and Apple became more about the licensing agreements,
not about the merits of the claims.

At the time, it was argued that look and feel was more of a trademark
issue, and Apple was able to remove elements of Digital's GEM interface
(used on the Atari ST, and PC computers) because they looked similar
enough to Apple's own operating systems.

(Funny enough, I'm not able to find a similar case between Apple and IBM
over OS/2. Something tells me Apple chose it's battles carefully).

Fast forward to today, and the recent ruling over Samsung's copying of
Apple elements and the subsequent $1 billion dollar judgement against
Samsung. Today user interface elements have patent protections not
afforded to Xerox and Apple back when the Star, Lisa and Macintosh
projects were developed. Had Xerox been able to patent their OS and GUI
elements, we'd be looking at a completely different desktop today. But,
because Xerox didn't patent, and Apple was able to copy, we have a
richer desktop environment. It's only by Apple's machinations to
greedily declare they are now the sole proprietors over certain
interface elements that we find ourselves in a sticky scenario where one
company can declare a certain mindset as their own.

This is the same nonsense that can allow someone like Walt Disney to
take a story from the Public Domain, re-work it a bit, and then claim
that nobody else can release a movie / book/ whatever using that story.
And we, the people who should vigorously defend the Public Domain from
people who would otherwise lock up it's vast content blithely sit by and
allow companies to lock these ideas up because they did some non-trivial
work to adapt it.

In the Creative Commons, there's a clause called "No Derivatives". In
brief, it states the author of the work wishes their own work, to the
extent copyright law allows, is not to be reused in a transformative
way. When we make our culture, our gestures, and our way of thinking
owned by companies that are more than eager to take from others, but not
allow others to take from them, we devalue our ability to express
ourselves creatively. And nobody should willingly give up their freedom
to create.